Mark Steyn's Interesting Take

[OldTrader]

Quote from traderNik:


Are you behind the war effort in Iraq because you think it's the best thing the U.S. can be doing now, or are you behind it as a veteran who is saying "I support our troops and the administration"?

I definitely support our troops, no questions asked. I feel for these folks because they are embroiled in a thankless war caught between political factions that do nothing more than make their job more difficult. We were there in Viet Nam, and we're now their again.

Do I support the administration? I support some things, others things I don't care for. But my opinions I suppose aren't really about supporting the adminstration.

Is there an objective for U.S. troops? What would you consider a 'win' in this war - how would that be defined?

For the life of me I can't figure out what the endgame in Iraq qould look like.

I suppose I would like to see this war fought like a war. I'd like to see the troops kick some butt. But it doesn't appear that there is any way that is going to happen given my prior post.

To me it's clear that the war was begun in nearly unamimous agreement because of the belief that WMD existed. Democrats and Republicans all went for this. Then we found out WMD did not exist.

What to do then becomes the dividing point. Certainly the troops are there, the bombing has happened. I'm not for "cut and run" because I think it carries serious ramifications throughout the rest of the world. I think we should finish our job there.

I'm not exactly sure what a "win" is supposed to look like, but in the end I don't think we'll take the steps to win. I think the American public has lost their desire, and the Democrats are on a different course. I think at this point we are on our way out, it's just a question of time. And I think the enemy knows this. So I don't think there will be any "winning" for us.

To tell you the truth, I haven't thought much about what a better endgame would look like, because I don't believe it will happen.

I do think you asked some important questions. I'm fairly pessimistic about our possibilities. But the good news is that I'm no expert, so I'm more or less in the position that the public is typically in....I'm hoping that something good can happen. I have no clue though as to what that is, because essentially I don't think we will do what it takes.

OldTrader

 

[FanOfFridays]

Thanks for the reply, OldTrader.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from OldTrader:

I definitely support our troops, no questions asked. I feel for these folks because they are embroiled in a thankless war caught between political factions that do nothing more than make their job more difficult. We were there in Viet Nam, and we're now their again.

Do I support the administration? I support some things, others things I don't care for. But my opinions I suppose aren't really about supporting the adminstration.




I suppose I would like to see this war fought like a war. I'd like to see the troops kick some butt. But it doesn't appear that there is any way that is going to happen given my prior post.

To me it's clear that the war was begun in nearly unamimous agreement because of the belief that WMD existed. Democrats and Republicans all went for this. Then we found out WMD did not exist.

What to do then becomes the dividing point. Certainly the troops are there, the bombing has happened. I'm not for "cut and run" because I think it carries serious ramifications throughout the rest of the world. I think we should finish our job there.

I'm not exactly sure what a "win" is supposed to look like, but in the end I don't think we'll take the steps to win. I think the American public has lost their desire, and the Democrats are on a different course. I think at this point we are on our way out, it's just a question of time. And I think the enemy knows this. So I don't think there will be any "winning" for us.

To tell you the truth, I haven't thought much about what a better endgame would look like, because I don't believe it will happen.

I do think you asked some important questions. I'm fairly pessimistic about our possibilities. But the good news is that I'm no expert, so I'm more or less in the position that the public is typically in....I'm hoping that something good can happen. I have no clue though as to what that is, because essentially I don't think we will do what it takes.

OldTrader

Partitioning Iraq might be the solution to get us out of there. It will reduce one big problem into three small ones. In fact, only two small ones because Kurds are with us.

With an internationally sanctioned partitioning, the shiites and the sunnis will be in two separate countries. They'll still hate each other but hopefully they'll be just like Indians and Pakistanis, coexist relatively peacefully with intermittent border clashes.

At least we will be able to pull out without leaving too big a mess.

 

[Madison]

Quote from OldTrader:

There is no toughness in America anymore. The enemy cuts heads off, but Americans are imprisoned yet the liberal press and base scream at American soldiers for even the most minor of war acts.

This country is not tough enough to fight a war. We should lay our weapons down, our enemies have resolve, they believe in their cause...which is to rid the world of "infidels".

the problem with your argument, applied to iraq, is that it is not a "war" - it is an occupation, an attempt to coerce a society to obey a foreign invader, and a farce. entered into without any evidence of a threat, without justification, without any noticeable benefit to american citizens, and poorly executed to boot. it has been nothing but a colossal waste of life and resources. it cannot be "won," any more than the last fiasco in viet nam could be "won."

opposing the continuation of such a waste does not require a lack of "toughness" - it is common sense.

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from Madison:

the problem with your argument, applied to iraq, is that it is not a "war" - it is an occupation, an attempt to coerce a society to obey a foreign invader, and a farce. entered into without any evidence of a threat, without justification, without any noticeable benefit to american citizens, and poorly executed to boot. it has been nothing but a colossal waste of life and resources. it cannot be "won," any more than the last fiasco in viet nam could be "won."

opposing the continuation of such a waste does not require a lack of "toughness" - it is common sense.

Not a war? Why? Because Congress did not issue a formal Declaration of War? As you know, there was an authorization to use force by Congress. There was bombing, killing, shooting, etc., in short, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. I'd say it's a duck. So let's dispense with that...the entire world is calling this a War.

No evidence of threat, no justification, no benefit to the American people? I'd beg to differ there as well. As far as any of us knew, there were WMD. This more than justified, as Congress and the majority of American citizens agreed. The problem is that LATER we discover there is no WMD. That changes things, but let's face it, we're there, we acted in good faith, with the authorization of Congress and the approval of the American people.

Now maybe your're making the case that Bush was lying about WMD. But frankly, none of us know that. But even if it were true, it does not change the original intent of all of the parties who embarked down the War road in the beginning. Again, we all believed that there was an important reason to take this act. (With the possible exception of Bush if you have reason to believe he was lying. I don't).

Poorly executed? The bombing was well executed. What was poorly executed was the ground war, which is what I referred to in my post.

I might add, Viet Nam could have been "won"...but it too was "poorly executed".

OldTrader

 

[CaptainObvious]

This war was lost the minute some thug took a pot shot at one of our convoys and lived to tell about it. The split second al sadr ran his mouth without catching one between the eyes, we lost. We were to busy with the already failed "hearts and minds" concept. A nations compassion is determined AFTER they kick the shit out of their enemy, not during the fighting.

 

[esuperbo]

Vietnam was not winnable. Oldtrader is completely right, you have to sink to the level of the "enemy", and the enemy in that case was defending thier homes and families and was willing to die a brutal and terrible death to prove this. America was fighting communism, they thought.

The problem in Iraq is the same. Americans are fighting for an abstract concept, "end terrrorism", which will somehow be accomplished by some sort of mission in Iraq, carried out by rotating convoys of freaked out kids thousands of miles away from home. Iraqis are fighting because they watched their home and children be blown to pieces and no have nothing at all to fucking lose.

To be frank, unless there is a very real threat that the fight will be brought to the home front (ie WW2), you cannot muster sufficient will to win a war, simply because the very true view exists if you stop fighting the (immediate) danger is gone.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

This war was lost the minute some thug took a pot shot at one of our convoys and lived to tell about it. The split second al sadr ran his mouth without catching one between the eyes, we lost. We were to busy with the already failed "hearts and minds" concept. A nations compassion is determined AFTER they kick the shit out of their enemy, not during the fighting.

You should be running the Pentagon.

Actually, we won the "war." We demolished Saddam's military and occupied Baghdad in an amazingly short time. It's the aftermath that has caused problems.

The difference between this and a typical war is that our objective was not victory but regime change. Unfortunately, we apparently failed to ask or answer the question, "Then what...?" It turns out that George HW Bush's people were correct in saying before the war began that we were underestimating the difficulty of dealing with a post-war Iraq.

In the typical war, the objective is either to take over a country or defeat a country that is trying to take yours over. It's clear that there are no holds barred, because losing likely means death or terrible suffering. Or there is the revenge factor. After Pearl Harbor most Americans would have liked to see nukes dropped on every Japanese city, not just two.

In Iraq we were expecting to be greeted like we were in occupied France. Instead we found ourselves in the middle of a vicious battle to control post-Saddam Iraq. A little-reported fact is that the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is not directed at us but at other Iraqis. All factions know we will eventually leave, and they are battling for supremacy when that happens. In effect, our altruism has made the situation worse. If we had clamped down, taken their oil and shot anyone who objected, there probably would be far less anarchy and violence now. A power vacuum will be filled, and the democratically elected government has not been up to the task of filling it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from esuperbo:

Vietnam was not winnable. Oldtrader is completely right, you have to sink to the level of the "enemy", and the enemy in that case was defending thier homes and families and was willing to die a brutal and terrible death to prove this. America was fighting communism, they thought.

The problem in Iraq is the same. Americans are fighting for an abstract concept, "end terrrorism", which will somehow be accomplished by some sort of mission in Iraq, carried out by rotating convoys of freaked out kids thousands of miles away from home. Iraqis are fighting because they watched their home and children be blown to pieces and no have nothing at all to fucking lose.

To be frank, unless there is a very real threat that the fight will be brought to the home front (ie WW2), you cannot muster sufficient will to win a war, simply because the very true view exists if you stop fighting the (immediate) danger is gone.

You are just totally mistaken about Vietnam. The enemy was not defending their homes. The North Vietnamese were taking over the South. The vietcong were a minor faction that was wiped out in the Tet offensive. After that we were fighting the NVA, which was supplied by the Soviets. We could have rather easily defeated them by destroying the North's ability to wage war, but instead Democrats in congress forced Nixon to refrain from such tactics. Downtown Hanoi was offlimits to our bombers, as was the port of Haiphong, through which the Soviet supplies entered.

You do have a valid point about the difficulty of fighting an insurgency in a country with little in the way of a functioning government. Israel learned that lesson in Lebanon and we are learning it now. We are far too concerned about what CNN will report to do what is necessary to win. As a result, we concede victory to people who are totally unconcerned about international opinion, war crimes, civilian casualties or Geneva Conventions.

 

[esuperbo]

AAA, have you seen The Fog of War? Great documentary about the life of Robert MacNamara - one part deals with him returning to Vietnam years later and almost coming to blows with a Vietnamese leader when they argued over the causes and motivations of both parties involved. MacNamara initially had an argument similar to yours - I suggest you watch it, it's a fascinating (and Oscar-winning at that) movie.